A Convergence Study about Influences of Self-efficacy and Mindfulness on Job Satisfaction on General Hospital Nurses

Abstract

This is a convergence study to examine influences of self-efficacy and mindfulness on job satisfaction of nurses. For this explanatory survey research, 71 clinical nurses working for a general hospital in D city were recruited. Data were collected with self-reported questionnaires from september 20 to october 4 in 2015 and analyzed with PASW Statistics (SPSS) 18.0 program. Job satisfaction significantly positively correlated with self-efficacy (r=.439, p<.001), but there were no significant correlation between self-efficacy and mindfulness (r=-.142, p=.241) or mindfulness and job satisfaction (r=-.067, p=.583).Self-efficacy was the only significantly influencing factor on job satisfaction (β=.429, p<.001). According to the results, self-efficacy could be a key factor to increase job satisfaction of clinical nurses and many trials had to be developed and administered to increase it for enhancing clinical nurses' job satisfaction.

Searching for New Technology Acceptance Model under Social Context: Analyzing the Determinants of Acceptance of Intelligent Information Technology in Digital Transformation and Implications for the Requisites of Digital Sustainability

“…It has been found that the higher one's self-efficacy, the easier and more positive is one's acceptance of information technology, and the higher their individual satisfaction [40]. Self-efficacy has been verified as an significant variable that affects the preceding variables of TAM by Davis et al [36,41,42]. Indeed, Agarwal and Karahanna [43] found that self-efficacy has an impact on ease of use.…”

The Experience of Emotional Labor and Its Related Factors among Nurses in General Hospital Settings in Republic of Korea: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…Finally, 131 studies were included in this review . Among these, 101 studies were included in the meta-analysis [67][68][69]71,74,77,78,[80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92]94,[96][97][98]100,[102][103][104][105][106][108][109][110][111][112][113][114][117][118][119][120][121][122][123][124][125][126][128][129][130][131]…”

“…In 116 studies [67][68][69][70][71]73,[75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96]98,100,[135][136][137][138][139][140][141][144][145][146][147][148][149][150][151][152][153][154][155][156][157][158][159][161]…”

“…Among them, 12 variables commonly reported in five or more [186][187][188][189][190][191][193][194][195][196], the relationships between emotional labor or its subscales and other variables were analyzed. Among the studies, 23 studies [67,69,70,[79][80][81]87,89,94,107,112,119,127,131,135,148,153,161,162,164,174,188,191,195] were excluded, as these studies only reported the relationships between the subscales of emotional labor and other variables. In total, the relationships between emotional labor and a total of 63 variables were analyzed.…”

“…The relationships between emotional labor and other variables were either unclear or were not statistically significant (Figure 3, Supplementary File S5). Among the studies reporting the relationships between emotional labor and other variables, 12 studies [69,70,81,87,93,94,103,112,119,148,149,170] divided emotional labor into surface acting and deep acting. Surface acting and deep acting showed contradictory associations in some variables.…”